Top Indian court issues landmark gay sex ruling

The New Delhi High Court ruled that an existing statute prohibiting homosexual acts was discriminatory and therefore a “violation of fundamental rights” accorded under the Constitution.

The statute in question is a British colonial-era law outlawing “carnal intercourse against the order of nature.”

Conviction carried a fine and a maximum 10-year jail sentence.

Although prosecutions were rare, gay activists said police used the law to harass and intimidate members of their community.

The High Court ruling was made on a petition brought by the Naz Foundation, a gay advocacy group fighting for equal rights and AIDS awareness.

“This is a long awaited and incredible judgment,” gay rights activist Gautam Bhan said. “The judges in their verdict spoke about inclusivity, quality and dignity. They spoke about a vision of India as an open, tolerant society and to hear all this from the Delhi High Court was amazing.”

While the ruling is non-binding outside the Indian capital, lawyers supporting the petition said it set a precedent that effectively decriminalized consensual gay sex nationwide.

The petition had been staunchly opposed by religious groups, particularly leaders of India’s Muslim and Christian communities, who argued that all homosexual acts were “unnatural’ and should therefore be banned.

Gay sex has long been a taboo subject in conservative India, where many still regard homosexuality as an illness.

In recent years, however, the country’s largely closeted homosexual community has raised its profile, organizing gay pride marches in major cities such as New Delhi and Mumbai.

“I feel very proud to be an Indian today. This was a very just ruling,” openly gay fashion designer Wendell Rodericks said. “The entire legal community was in favor, I think, of the act being declared legal if it was between consenting adults.”

The Indian government has offered mixed messages on its policy regarding the decriminalization of gay sex, with some ministers speaking out in favor of the petition, only to be contradicted by others in the Cabinet.